Page 1061 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 5 April 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
We have all spoken at length about the dodgy consultation that has happened throughout this process. It is worth noting that in actual fact the Liberal government in the late 90s proposed to do a redevelopment at Red Hill. Regardless of the merits of that proposal, the Labor Party promised to stop it because it was inappropriate. What are we seeing today? The absolute opposite. The difference is that we are happy to see development there. We are happy to have a reasonable level of development, and we think RZ3 is the appropriate code, the appropriate zoning, for such development.
The difference is that we have Mr Rattenbury rubber stamping the Labor government’s proposal. The only reason that variation 334 is getting up is because Mr Rattenbury is backing it. Why is it that Mr Barr, the only Labor incumbent who is going to be running in Kurrajong, is not speaking to this motion? Why isn’t the future local member—the current local member for Labor—speaking to this motion? It is because he takes Shane Rattenbury’s support for granted. He knows that no matter what happens, Mr Rattenbury is going to back him in. He knows he does not need to make a case. He knows he does not need to argue something on its merits. He knows that Mr Rattenbury is going to back him, rain, hail or shine. It shows the strength of the coalition and how tight Labor and the Greens are in the ACT.
If I might digress, those opposite, the Labor Party, would not even have a 13-seat strategy for this election. They would have an 11 or 12-seat strategy, and they are banking on the Greens to get them over the line. Quite frankly, given everything we have seen over the past four years, the past eight years or the past 15 years, perhaps that is a pretty reasonable assumption to make. We on this side of the chamber are determined to represent all of Canberra. We are determined to do all we can to ensure that we get good outcomes right across this city, including in Red Hill, and including stopping variation 334.
We heard when the Assembly sat last month that there was confusion over this whole issue; we then heard that, in actual fact, maybe 334 could be withdrawn, or maybe it could be amended. Unfortunately, none of that was true. There was no confusion; the variation could not be withdrawn and it could not be amended—the three things that Mr Rattenbury said. He was clutching at straws.
Now we have a proposal for a technical amendment to the territory plan, a technical variation. It will be very interesting to see whether that actually stands up, because if it is a substantial technical amendment, if it is, in effect, a substantial change to 334, it is not a technical amendment. So Mr Rattenbury has to propose a technical amendment which is minor in nature and therefore it will not address the concerns; or it does address the concerns and therefore it should not be a technical amendment; it should be a full variation.
If they are going to try to sneak through substantial changes to the territory plan through a technical amendment, that is a very dangerous precedent. It is either substantial and it is a proper variation or it is not substantial and Mr Rattenbury is letting people down yet again. The truth is that the only way to safeguard good planning outcomes in this city is to stop dodgy variations going ahead. That is why we firmly stand by the disallowance that we are discussing today. We firmly believe that variation 334 should be stopped.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video